The following are things that should be legalize because there isn’t any argument prohibiting it:

1. Polyandry. While there are plenty of arguments against polygamy, most of which only apply to males having many wives. The idea that no women are willing to share, for example, may be valid for females. There is no way it’s valid for males. Many males including me do not mind sharing one hot babe. In fact, I’d rather share a hot babe than be the only one for an ugly fat bitch. Another argument against polygamy is that women are forced into it. Well, who knows what women want. One thing for sure is I won’t feel being forced to share Miyabi. Finally polygamy is not inconsistent with democracy of one man one vote. That last one is the one that make some sense to me, but only if sex outside marriage is illegal. Still, there is no where in history where polyandry concentrate power in the hand of 1 women.

2. Legalized paid sex if it is to encourage women to divorce her existing husband. Think about it. The main argument against prostitution is that it is always forced. When there is no force involved, the argument goes that lack of choice count as force. For example, if the women would starve unless she becomes a prostitute, feminazis would count that as force. Well, if a woman already has a husband that’s a non issue then. She has a choice, namely staying married. She just choose better. Hence it’s definitely more consensual.

3. Legalized non promiscuous commercial sex. Many arguments against prostitution in general doesn’t fly when the prostitution comes in the form of sugar babies. One of the main argument against prostitution is that promiscuity spread STD. Well it doesn’t work for sugar babies that are not promiscuous. In fact, the majority of STD spreads among teen more than prostitute. Another is that women are forced by pimps. Again, there is no pimp in sugar babies. Another argument is lack of choice that count as forced. Well, most sugar babies are hot enough to marry. Yet they just choose better.

5. Legalized organ sales on organs that are regrow-able or allow people to voluntarily sell his organ when he died. When organ is regrowable, like blood or marrow, there is an abundance supply of organ. Buying the organ will not cause adverse effect. The same way, many dying people want to inherit more wealth to their offsprings. So why not let them sell their organ harvestable when they died?

In the future, more can be legalized. However, the 5 should be a start.

I must be missing something. Through all ages, most philosophy, especially those that answer ethics, allow and encourage cruel acts against other human being. It’s the norm. It’s not the exception.

We like to believe that it’s only done on exceptional cases. Still, those exception is more of a norm than exception.

In fact, libertarianism is the only school of ethics that do not justify cruelty, at least not consensually, nor encourage cruelty to others. Exceptions are arguable like in cases of shooting burglars slowly to death. But the burglars ask for it so it’s like consensual right? Okay just kidding but you got the point.

It’s as if the very reason why philosophy and religion is made is to justify cruel acts.

Normally we retaliate against cruel acts. But then, ah, through some long twisted philosophy of ethics, we start thinking oh it’s justified, it’s okay.

We see people getting tortured to death. Well according to legalism, a school of ethic, it’s the law of the land. So it’s okay. That sort of thing.

And that’s I think the real origin of ethic. Some tyrants sponsoring thought that justify his cruelty so he can stay in powah.

In fact, one central theme of taoism is that even robbers cause limited damage. But evil in the name of truth (=awesome ethic) has no limit.

Perhaps the issue is whether the school of ethic is formal. Perhaps formal means major. Well these look formal enough to me:

Legalism obviously.

If it’s the law, it’s okay.

It justify killing, strangling, crucifying, castrating, slaughtering to 9th degree of family. What doesn’t it justify?

Religion is another.

Religions should count as a school of ethic too, if not the main ones.

It justify war, genocide, slavery, just read book of exodus in bible. Just look how Taliban works.

Why? Well, God says so. Hmmmm. mmmmkay

Militarism is another.

It justify shooting other people. Yes those are technically enemy. But then again most guys in Hiroshima weren’t soldiers. So are most women raped by rusian army. So were jews that died during holocaust.

C’mon guys. They just want to kill. Then they come up with some philosophy why it’s cool to kill.

Now let’s count some indirect circumstances.

We need food. Say you prohibit someone from getting food in any practical way. You effectively force him to starve right?

Imagine if you said okay you can get food but you can’t pay for it. Well that’s still as good as forcing him to starve because unless you are very charming then you most likely can’t get food without paying.

So if we can include any philosophy that may not justify cruelty but justify acts that obviously lead to cruel outcome and use felonious murder legal doctrine logic we should include:

Trade restriction-ism

It’s a school of ethic. It basically says that some consensual trade is not ethical and hence must be prohibited. What’s the result?

I think all evil in the world stem largely due to trade restrictions. Without trade restrictions we can be rich by helping others. Trade restrictions give more happiness to those who are in power than those who are productive. Basically profit in trade restriction-ism goes to those who have the power to restrict trade.

So people try to be in power more and act cruelly to others so they are feared.

World wars would not have happened if globalization was already the norm. Politicians cannot seize people money if the market regulate everything. Whitney Houston and Michael Jackson would have been alive if ganja is legal.

Everything we hear are just bullshit after bullshit to make us believe the fairy tales that some consensual trade is evil.

That’s the heart of evil.

The most notorious trade restrictionism is

Socialism

It’s a school of ethic. It says that wealth is not ethical

One notorious trade restriction-ism is socialism. It justify government intervention in economy that obviously lead to really really messed up famine and poverty. During chinese “great leap” or whatever, chinese eat their own kids because they are starving. Such is the evil of government’s intervention in economy.

The worst of the worst of trade restriction-ism is

The #1 super cruel philosophy in the world is, drum roll (looks like it’s going to be my last answers before I am kicked out from this site)

feminazism

It’s a major school of ethic. It says that some/all commercialized consensual acts for sex is not ethical.

It restrict trade and commercialization of the most important aspect of our life, sex.

Most males want to get laid. Imagine if you said you can’t have sex. Then you cruelly forced him into a shageless life. Imagine if you said you can’t have sex unless you pay for it? Well unless you’re Brad Pitt, it’s hard to charm women without “consideration”.. Yes you can offer marriage (I wonder why) but marriage sucks because it’s infested by non market force such as governments’ trade restriction.

Feminazism hurt the interest of hot babes even more than males.

Think about it. So many women are stoned, killed, and beaten up in Afghanistan. Obviously many of those women prefer to move out to other countries where women are treated better.

Feminists prohibit anyone from helping those women out. Yes, they said that you are prohibited from helping women move out only if the woman is going to have sex for money.

That’s still the same thing. What can that girl offer beside sex to persuade others to provide costly help for her? Even western girls often have sex with photographer for stardorm. It’s what girls do.

So many kids are born out of poverty because their dad are poor. Yet feminazis successfully make sugar babies illegal. So many hot babes cannot get paid by richer males. Those women ended up marrying. Marriage must be monogamous. In other word, every male will tend to get one under marriage system no matter how poor or violent he is.

Result is obvious. Women ended up with violent assholes that beat her up.

The only thing good about feminazism is that they demand women to fight on front line. Sure. We should encourage those dikes to do so.

Morality evolve out of subjective preferences of those who are in power.

Western people have a far stronger sense of “equality” of outcome as their ideal than other people. To western people, any means that allow some productive guys to live longer, acquire more mates, or survive better in the gene pool will always be “wrong”.

If the rich can just buy organ, then they can get higher priority for treatment and live longer. This is “wrong” in western countries.

Prohibition of organ donor is just one among many similar strings of rules.

If health care is totally regulated through free market mechanism, the rich can live longer than the less productive people. Tada… It’s wrong. Now whether they can get medical treatment is decided by “death panel” http://lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory241.html

If sugar babies are legal, the rich that can attract and pay more women can get more women than the poor. Tada… It’s wrong.

When education is totally privatized, smarter kids and kids with richer parents will get better education. Tada… It’s wrong.

I recognize some pattern here. Every time some one with better talent can get something other people cannot, there will be tons of people that say it’s wrong. If the number is large enough, suddenly it becomes wrong.

Effectively while you can be rich in western civilization through productivity, which is the great part of this civilization, the only thing you can buy with your money are doodads that won’t improve your gene pool survival.

Effectively it’s genocide against the most productive individuals and in western civilization, that’s moral. That’s ethical. Just 60 years ago they slaughtered their best and brightest in German and Turkey, when everything else fail.

Actually the same happen in other civilizations too. I guess it’s just human basic instinct to get rid superior competitors out of the gene pool.

Yes you can make way more money than your comrades, but money is the only thing you can have more.

Allowing organ donor will allow dying persons to inherit more wealth to his offspring. Most organs are regenerate-able. Kidneys for example can be taken up to 75% and will grow back. So is bone marrow. This will greatly eliminate poverty. That would undermine governments’ excuse to get bigger, and hence will be considered wrong too.

Having an organ market will establish some market price. That way every soldiers that are killed in battle can have their organ harvested and the money can go to their families.

It’s not wrong in ethical sense. It’s wrong in a sense that it’s politically incorrect. Government want to regulate trade and by selling your organ you sort of undermine their effective “ownership” of your body.

Another issue is most things that give government power over what you control is considered ethical by government. It’s like robbers thinking that you giving him wallet is a good thing. Why wouldn’t he?

So smoking save dope is “wrong” while government having power to decide what you can smoke is considered “good”

The same way marriage where government control everything is considered good while prostitution where you decide for your self the term is considered bad.

Here, organ transplant is the same thing. If someone want to sell organ and deal with you straight, it’s wrong. If government then regulate it by preventing the organ donor from getting top bucks and giving the organ to the most worthless death row inmates, it’s “good”.

The whole thing is just statist mentality.

In a sense, ownership is not as important controlship and controlship is effective ownership.

By preventing you to sell your organ, government effectively says that they “own” your body and you have to bribe officials first before they allow it. By selling your organ you effectively rob government out their ownership.

It’s the same with prohibition of sex outside marriage. Government is effectively saying that they are the only pimp and you got to appease them first before you can have sex by bribing or picking only singles or those favored by government.

When you do consensual acts with high value without governments’ approval, governments official lose their potential bribe that they could have had.

This may sound strange. But just look at income tax. People actually think that if you don’t pay tax you rob government, even though it’s your own money. It’s like that.

Some safeguard need to be there to ensure that people don’t just sell their organ based on some hidden clause written in small letters when they sign up to some internet free cookies offer. However, there is nothing unethical or wrong in selling organ in most cases that I know of.

This is a very broad definition. What kind of sex is there that’s done without “consideration”?

Also lewd is defined as “the touching of breast, buttocks or genitals for the purpose of sexual gratification or arousal.” Okay, let me try to understand here. If lewd acts are illegal, how do you guys have sex out there anyway? How do you get babies?

Why sex within marriage is not considered lewd?

More importantly, why is it wrong to have “consideration” when deciding to have sex with someone?

It’s easy for most of us to believe that truth is all that matters. It doesn’t matter what some crazy nuts believe. All that matter is truth.

Imagine if you’re a defendant in court. Which one matters more? The truth whether you indeed rape or murder the girl, or whatever the judge and jury believe?

Which one will land you in jail?

Now look at how politics work.

There is nothing in anti-drug laws that specify that prohibited drugs must be dangerous. There is nothing in anti-prostitution laws that specify that prostitution must be promiscuous or forced. Anti-women trafficking laws specifically add clauses that trafficking is still prohibited irrelevant of consent.

Yet most people believe that all prohibited drugs are more dangerous than the legal ones. People also believe that all prostitution and women trafficking are not consensual and hence less preferable than the legal marriage. Quite often their beliefs are what matters.

To further add complication, beliefs are often very useful for those who are in power. Those who are in power then have strong incentive to promote the beliefs irrelevant of truth. Take a look the belief that all humans are equal and have right to live for example. There is no proof for that. Yet, most of us, including me, would want to embrace that for obvious reason. We don’t want to die. Also if we end up killing each other we are all worst off.

This is too complicated. Few if any individuals in ancient time see that we will kill each other unless we recognize right not to be killed. Till today, most people don’t know. Most people are not aware that most people live, simply because it’s illegal to kill them.

Even if most of us do not want to kill for money, once we see too many people do it and get away with it, we too will do it. The main reason why we don’t kill is simply because we believe that killing doesn’t pay.

In ancient time, religions give reason to promote beliefs that simply don’t have proof but beneficial to many anyway.

Many things are not that benign.

We sort of think that most interaction are consensual. We sort of see that prohibition against consensual acts are the exception rather than the norm. Few of us see that’s it’s simply the interest of those who are in power, rather than the interest of the consenting parties, that are behind laws against consensual acts.

Put your self in the shoes of judges. Which way the judges care more? Truth or bribe? It’s easy for us to blame judges. But aren’t we like that? When we vote, do we care about justice or interests? Very often it’s simply our interests too, which we pretend to be justice.

It’s simply not to the best interest of religious leaders to let their followers to interpret their religions freely or change religion.

The same way it’s not to the best interests of those with less to offer to simply legalize all consensual transactions. Doing so would force them to compete viciously against those with far better offers than them. That often lead to extinction.

We don’t expect most voters to want free trades, which mean they are losing their job. We don’t expect poorer males would want sugar babies legalized, which mean the rich will just get all the girls. The same way we don’t expect ugly feminists to support legalization porn, in which prettier girls get all the attention. We also won’t expect the poor not to support nationalized health care or lower tax. It simply isn’t going to happen.

One solution is to embrace freedom all the way and fight for our freedom, or look at reality and adapt to it. That’s what tyrants and grafters do. They lied, they cheat, they enslave, but what’s the alternative? The alternative is to be lied to, to be cheated to, and to be non-consensually enslaved by the will of the ignorant majority.

To further add to the complexity, beliefs do change reality to the same, if not more degree, than the other way around. If people believe something, they bet on it, they count on it, then they want it, and they make that happens.

We believe that drugs are dangerous, so it becomes really dangerous with mafias, gangs, and cops shooting each other over it. Countries that legalize drugs will be vilified for the obvious reason. They show that drug is not dangerous and that means offending the beliefs of many with interests invested on drugs prohibition.

Many believe that God exist and is on their side, and the world behave as if God is really on the emperor’s side with everyone fears rebelling against emperors. We believe that prostitution can’t be consensual and what do you think a pimp will do if he knows that the punishment for him will be the same anyway whether the girls consent or not?

Because our beliefs, though false, are even useful to us, and because beliefs are self-fulfilling, we tend to maintain our beliefs irrelevant of anything.